With Windows 10, Microsoft could move to a subscription-based model
166 replies, posted
[url]http://www.extremetech.com/computing/195592-with-windows-10-microsoft-could-move-to-a-subscription-based-model[/url]
[QUOTE]Microsoft has indicated that Windows 10, which will be released next year, could move towards a subscription-based model. Instead of going the usual route and buying a perpetual Windows 10 license for $50 to $200, you would instead pay a few dollars per month — and then, as with most subscriptions, you’d get free upgrades when major new versions of Windows come along. Another option might be that you get a basic version of Windows 10 for free, but a subscription would unlock more advanced features — this is the scheme that Microsoft currently uses with its Office for iOS apps.[/QUOTE]
Ha-ha, no.
Make me want to pay monthly and you got it.
I highly fucking doubt it though.
which means i can move to a 'i'm not buying that shit' model
Dunno if this would be such a bad thing, I got office 365 rather than a permanent office license and it's not so bad, I do like the idea of not having to suddenly pay a huge lump fee if you want to always be using the latest version.
does anyone prefer a subscription over a one time fee?
anyone?
Please don't. That would make me have to be on Win7 forever. I don't want to become one of those "XP Forever!" plebians.
if it's priced right i don't care tbh. i'd much rather pay £40 a year for the ever shortening lifespan of the OS (assuming we get to upgrade to the next one for free) than shell out £120 or whatever in one payment
it has worked for UE4, it's working well for Photoshop (especially in big businesses). no reason it can't work here
most of the people complaining about the subscription probably already don't buy the operating system. they're trying to reduce piracy by making the subscription more attractive than pirating it.
[editline]9th December 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;46679169]if it's priced right i don't care tbh. i'd much rather pay £40 a year for the ever shortening lifespan of the OS (assuming we get to upgrade to the next one for free) than shell out £120 or whatever in one payment
it has worked for UE4, it's working well for Photoshop (especially in big businesses). no reason it can't work here[/QUOTE]
exactly
how about you fuck off microshaft
A subscription based solution [I]only [/I]wouldn't help Microsoft selling Windows licenses at all - either we're getting the DLC model:
[QUOTE]We plan to “monetize the lifetime of that customer through services and different add-ons that we’re (going) to be able to incorporate with that solution.”[/QUOTE]
Where the base product would be free or otherwise cheap.
Else they might try to run both a subscription service [I]and[/I] a "buy license" model - people on the subscription service would get major revision "for free" while people who bought a license will be stuck on the old version. This would make sense since most people don't upgrade every cycle, and thus they could make money on the subscription service.
I honestly think it's way too early to call this a bad move, we don't even know what their model's gonna be.
Subscription fees for an [I]OS!?[/I]
Blow your rent-seeking out your ass, Microsoft. I'm not paying for that any more than I'm paying for your Office subscription.
I mean this is kinda what they're doing with Office 365 and Office 2013 already, isn't it?
Having an Office 365-like model is only good if it's an alternative to getting everything for a one-time fee (2013 is still one-time like past Office versions). I don't see why Microsoft can't do something similar with a "Windows 365" product, but if Nadella's SaaSsy attitude is the only way Windows will be available in, then it's nigh near suicide for Microsoft. Then again, Adobe did the same with Creative Cloud, and they're doing fine. Microsoft would have to slash prices so heavily to match or even go lower than the costs of a CC subscription that they may as well make Windows free.
I like the OSX model where updates are free.
Personally, if this was an [U]OPTION[/U], as in there was more than one way to buy it and we still had the option to just buy the standard full package, I wouldn't see a problem with it.
Otherwise, I'm sticking with Windows 7 for another 6 years.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;46679174]most of the people complaining about the subscription probably already don't buy the operating system. they're trying to reduce piracy by making the subscription more attractive than pirating it.
[/QUOTE]
good job of labeling people who want a [B]product [/B]and not a [I]service [/I] as pirates.
I own windows 7 and this is a dumb move, fuckin holy shit I won't pay a sub fee to use a pc this is dumb.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;46679174]most of the people complaining about the subscription probably already don't buy the operating system. they're trying to reduce piracy by making the subscription more attractive than pirating it.
[editline]9th December 2014[/editline]
exactly[/QUOTE]
I paid $50 for Win7 and it's lasted me since its release. That's a much better deal than $40/year for the next 3-6 years.
[editline]and piracy[/editline]
If anything, this will make people want to crack it so they don't get overcharged for an operating system.
A better model would be one that makes the base OS dirt cheap with additional features and major upgrades relatively priced.
Don't fucking do it.
I want to move off of Win7 so the Win8 users that don't understand what an opinion is will quit bitching at me.
[sp]Note that there's plenty of Win8 users that are fine, but I've seen too damn many of them that absolutely refuse to quit preaching about how Win7 is outdated whenever I use "personal preference" as a response to their "omg why haven't you updated"[/sp]
My only experience with subscription-based software is Adobe's CC stuff, and I can say that in the long term, I'd just much rather have the old kind of license. You end up paying more with the subscription over a long period of time than you would when you just buy the one license.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;46679174]they're trying to reduce piracy by making the subscription more attractive than pirating it.[/QUOTE]
Yeah except its still not
[QUOTE=Elspin;46679162]Dunno if this would be such a bad thing, I got office 365 rather than a permanent office license and it's not so bad, I do like the idea of not having to suddenly pay a huge lump fee if you want to always be using the latest version.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, I can afford to pay out $7 a month for a yearly Office356 sub than a $100+ lump sum. Depending on how they do it, I really don't think it be that bad of a deal. I mean if you can afford the upfront cost, then you get to enjoy no sub-fee, if you can't well here's a way for you to pay in small micropayments so you can.
[QUOTE=01271;46679208]I like the OSX model where updates are free.[/QUOTE]
What? Isn't it completely and totally the opposite? My ex actually had to install apps for her ipod touch on windows back in the day because apple was going to charge her for a minor OS update, and itunes wouldn't update without it, which wouldn't get apps without it, etc. It was like version hell with a pay wall
[QUOTE=Rahkshi lord;46679213]good job of labeling people who want a [B]product [/B]and not a [I]service [/I] as pirates.
I own windows 7 and this is a dumb move, fuckin holy shit I won't pay a sub fee to use a pc this is dumb.[/QUOTE]
why not? what if its cheaper? you just don't like the idea of paying a fee every month?
what if you decide you dont like the new windows and would rather install another OS (ie linux) wouldn't the subscription be better?
also, it might make formatting a lot easier, dont have to worry about liscenses anymore.
[QUOTE=Foxtrot200;46679214]I paid $50 for Win7 and it's lasted me since its release. That's a much better deal than $40/year for the next 3-6 years.[/QUOTE]
I think I paid $120 for three copies of it to install on all of the computers in my house.
[QUOTE=01271;46679208]I like the OSX model where updates are free.[/QUOTE]
Microsoft doesn't sell you the hardware, it's pretty obvious why this is a no-go. Apple wouldn't make much money selling OSX either way - the user base is around 70m, and if everyone upgraded and the OS costed $30 (I think that was the price before it going free), that would "only" net them around $2b which is honestly pocket change to Apple.
[QUOTE=Birdman101;46679223]Yeah except its still not[/QUOTE]
Glad that Birdman101 could confirm that Microsoft's hypothetical, totally not in any way official, subscription service for an OS that won't launch for another 9-10 months, will be "not attractive".
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;46679187]A subscription based solution [I]only [/I]wouldn't help Microsoft selling Windows licenses at all - either we're getting the DLC model:
Where the base product would be free or otherwise cheap.
Else they might try to run both a subscription service [I]and[/I] a "buy license" model - people on the subscription service would get major revision "for free" while people who bought a license will be stuck on the old version. This would make sense since most people don't upgrade every cycle, and thus they could make money on the subscription service.
I honestly think it's way too early to call this a bad move, we don't even know what their model's gonna be.[/QUOTE]
$10 for Notepad
$25 for Task Manager
$3.99 for right click
$.99 Copy command
$.99 Paste command
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;46679236]Microsoft [B]doesn't sell you the hardware[/B], it's pretty obvious why this is a no-go. Apple wouldn't make much money selling OSX either way - the user base is around 70m, and if everyone upgraded and the OS costed $30 (I think that was the price before it going free), that would "only" net them around $2b which is honestly pocket change to Apple.[/QUOTE]
[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/Microsoft_Surface_Pro_3_with_Type_Cover.jpg/640px-Microsoft_Surface_Pro_3_with_Type_Cover.jpg[/img]
?
(I love how the uploader took the time to have it displaying the Wikipedia page of the SP3 with the exact same image of the SP3 repeating, though)
[QUOTE=Elspin;46679226]What? Isn't it completely and totally the opposite? My ex actually had to install apps for her ipod touch on windows back in the day because apple was going to charge her for a minor OS update, and itunes wouldn't update without it, which wouldn't get apps without it, etc. It was like version hell with a pay wall[/QUOTE]
the last couple versions of OS X have been free downloads on the mac app store, been that way for a couple years
[QUOTE=ironman17;46679211]Personally, if this was an [U]OPTION[/U], as in there was more than one way to buy it and we still had the option to just buy the standard full package, I wouldn't see a problem with it.
Otherwise, I'm sticking with Windows 7 for another 6 years.[/QUOTE]
Considering you can still buy office as either a permanent license for a single version or a subscription to whatever the latest version is it would likely work the same way for windows. Having options is good for the consumer, so if that's how they do it there's no reason for anyone to be cranky
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.